Author(s):  
Marcia Rizzutto ◽  
Manfredo Tabacniks

Systematic research into art and cultural heritage objects in museum collections are growing daily across the world. They are generally undertaken in partnership with archaeologists, curators, historians, conservators, and restorers. The use of scientific methods to answer specific questions about objects produced by different societies reveals the materials and technologies used in the past and gives us a better understanding of the history of migration processes, cultural characteristics, and thereby more grounded parameters for the preservation and conservation of cultural heritage. The use of non-destructive methods, such as the PIXE analysis, is very suitable in such studies because damage or alteration is avoided and the integrity of the object maintained. Such techniques gave historians and curators at the Archaeological and Ethnology Museum in São Paulo new understanding of the Chimu collection of ceramics as well as of the technical process of preventive conservation.


Author(s):  
Mary Elizabeth Fitts

According to the model of coalescence discussed in chapter 4, the political process of merging previously distinct communities should result in the integration of labor and collective identities. In this chapter, mid-eighteenth-century Catawba pottery and items of personal adornment are enlisted to assess whether this was the case for the people living around Nation Ford. Ceramic analysis is used to delineate constellations of practice, thereby providing information about the size of the work groups making pottery as well as the character of interaction between them. Next, patterns in the distribution of artifacts associated with mid-eighteenth-century Catawba adornment, including glass beads and metal fasteners, are examined in an effort to determine if they were being used to communicate generalized Southeastern Indian identities, matrilocal community identities, or both.


2020 ◽  
Vol 31 (3) ◽  
pp. 477-497
Author(s):  
Bárbara Arroyo ◽  
Takeshi Inomata ◽  
Gloria Ajú ◽  
Javier Estrada ◽  
Hiroo Nasu ◽  
...  

Since Kaminaljuyu was first systematically excavated in the 1930s, the chronology of the site has been fraught with confusion and scholarly disagreement. In recent years, scholars generally adopted the chronology presented by Shook and Popenoe de Hatch (1999) as the most authoritative account. In 2014, however, Inomata and colleagues proposed a revision of this chronology by shifting its Preclassic portion (including the Las Charcas and Providencia phases) roughly 300 years later in time. In this article, we analyze a total of 108 radiocarbon dates with Bayesian statistics, tying them to detailed ceramic analysis. These dates include previously reported dates, measured after the year 2000, as well as 68 new radiocarbon dates obtained from Kaminaljuyu and nearby sites. The results largely support Inomata and coauthors’ (2014) revised Preclassic chronology, placing the Las Charcas–Providencia transition around 350 BC and the Providencia–Verbena transition around 75 BC. In addition, we present new dates on the Early Classic period, although some ambiguity remains for the Esperanza phase, when Teotihuacan-related elements were introduced to Kaminaljuyu. The revised chronology, combined with environmental data, suggests an explosive increase in population and construction activity during the Verbena and Arenal phases.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document